In the Audio (Book 1, p47) Paul Snowden decribes the context in which Locke was writing. The 17th Century was one of massive change. There was religious turmoil as the fallout of the reformation was leading to political disruption across Europe. Eg the English Civil War. Also people were becoming more analytical- the 17th century saw the beginning of science as we know it. Locke was particular interested in the 'self' in terms of what this would mean at the Resurrection and the afterlife...
Locke uses the term 'person' to refer to a conscious thinking thing (the self), the term 'man' to refer to a physical entity, and the term 'substance' is an unchanging thing (this can be material of immaterial). The soul is an example of a substance, so is a soul.
As Susan James points out, Locke is concerned with personal identity in terms of forensics- (moral and theological considerations), he is not concerned with the metaphysical aspect of the 'self' like Descartes, because he believes this is something we will never understand (Audio, Understanding Historical Texts).
Locke uses the term 'person' to refer to a conscious thinking thing (the self), the term 'man' to refer to a physical entity, and the term 'substance' is an unchanging thing (this can be material of immaterial). The soul is an example of a substance, so is a soul.
As Susan James points out, Locke is concerned with personal identity in terms of forensics- (moral and theological considerations), he is not concerned with the metaphysical aspect of the 'self' like Descartes, because he believes this is something we will never understand (Audio, Understanding Historical Texts).
Essay Concerning Human Understanding 1694
In this article Locke argues that humans are born with a blank slate and only though the accumulation of experiences does the person. It is the continuation of consciousness which makes the person today. Therefore what makes the person today the same as the person yesterday is not that they had the same body, but rather the person today remembers he ws the person yesterday. The person or self is a moral and forensic entity.
That with which the consciousness of this present thinking thing can join itself makes the same person and is one self with it, and with nothing else, and so attributes to itself and owns all the actions of that thing as its own, as far as that consciousness reaches, and no further; as everyone who reflects will perceive. (Locke, p278).
Locke uses the thought experiment of the ‘severed finger’ to prove how consciousness is a separate entity to the physical body, and that the self should be attributed to the former rather than the latter. When the finger is part of the physical whole, it is connected to the consciousness because the consciousness is aware of it. Thus if we were to prick our finger we would feel pain because we are conscious of the finger, if the finger becomes separated completely and we feel nothing of it, it no longer becomes part of our conscious self. Thus the conscious self and the physical self are not the same thing.
Therefore bodily continuity should not be considered the continuation of self. Many physical changes happen in a lifetime, maybe not as dramatic as losing your finger but, over time, just as distinctive- the young boy is a very different phyically from the old man. The thing that connects one self in the past with one self in the future is a connected consciousness, and this connected consciousness comes through memory. Thus, in Locke's example, if the severed finger retains the conscious thoughts and memory of the ‘whole body’ person then the finger becomes the person even though the majority of physical body is elsewhere.
By talking about an identity of consciousness Locke is suggesting that it is consciousness itself which defines someones identity and consciousness alone! This consciousness is linked to memory, not bodily substances, or souls etc. You are conscious of only what you are conscious of being. Thus if you have someone else’s soul inside you, yet you are not aware of him, then you are not in fact the same person because you have none of his memories. and are not conscious of being him. (Locke uses the Major of Quinborough and Socrates to emphasis this point). If however Socrates soul was in the Major of Quinborough’s and the memories were merged this would make the same person (self).
Locke is talking about morals and forensics in his essay, he is not talking 'fluffy' metaphysics, he is precisely interested in what someone can be morally accountable for or not. He is suggesting you are responsible for what you are conscious of doing in the past, because your consciousness (based on memory) is you. If you robbed a bank yesterday you deserve to be punished because you are conscious of this act. However, conversely if you robbed a bank 30 years ago but have since completely forgot that you robbed a bank, according to Locke you should not be punished. If you truly forget something you are not responsible for it. This complex consciousness is what separates man from unthinking beast. It is this that separates the man from the beast. A man is a person because he has a consciousness and is accountable for his past.
However, Locke suggests that human courts are right to convict someone who claims to not remember a past sin because there is no way of knowing that the person is lying or not. And anyway in the day of judgement the convicted man who truly didn’t remember would be acquitted before the eyes of his lord.
Mackie suggests that Locke (book 1, pp110-114) is also suggests that Locke is occupied with the future as well as the past. We should be weary of our actions today because we will remember this in the future and be judged according. Personally I feel this is were Locke has got it wrong
Locke anticipates his potential detractors who suggest that a person could forget a wrongdoing but still be responsible for his physical actions because they were his physical actions. However Locke suggests this is a confusion of what it means by personal identity (as determined by memory self), and the physical man. While the man in the same, the consciousness has changed and thus the self has changed. Thus the present self should not be blamed for the past selfs actions if the past is not remembered even though it occurred in the same physical man. In fact we can see this in common language ‘He wasn’t himself today’ etc. Getting punished for something you have truly forgot is similar to a sane man being convicted of his crimes when he was mad (now-a-days this would be over-turned on account of the sane man have diminished responsibility).
Detractors
One Lockes main detractors was Thomas Reid who, in his 1764 publication An Inquiry into the Human MInd, on the principles of Common Sense, outlined a scenario which made Lockes hypothesis look less than watertight.
He outlines a case where there are three stages in a persons life, a young boy (A), a young man (B), and a old man (C). C remembers B but not A, yet B remembers A. Therefore, according to Locke, C is that same as B and B is the same as A, but C and A are different. This seems absurd.
Reid suggests memory is transitory. In the scenario above, A is related to B and B is related to C, so A and C must be the same, yet according to Locke they are not. Lockes arguement leads to a contraction a reductio ad absurdum.
Snowden also explains how Thomas Reids theory undermines Locke. If your consciousness is only linked to memory does this mean that you are different person to the one your were when a boy. (see above). Memory is not transitive Reid suggest. However Locke champions suggest that memory could be 'overlapping' rather than being fully transitive. So long as you at some point in your life you remembered the younger boy person, then that person in still you even though you do not remember you as a boy.
In Philosophy Bites Paul Snowden also raises further questions about the separation of the 'person' form the 'man' as proposed by Locke. Paul Snowden is an animalist who believes the body and the person cannot be separated and in this sense we are similar to animals. The common scenario philosophers use to explain how a body can exist separately from the person is how someone with dementure should not be considered the same 'person' as they were before. Yet Snowden argues this is an emotional notion, we steel ourselves when viewing our parents in this state, by rationalising that the person we see before us is 'different'. Yet how would we feel if, when asking to view our mother we were told that while the body is there, the person is somehow gone. (we would be outraged).
He also think Locke's idea that personal identity is strictly tied to forensics is too simplistic. What if you remembered doing something bad as a child, but have completely changed pychologically as a person. Are you still morally responsible.
I had a problem with the old general thought experiment. If memory represents the person, then A (the young boy) is not identical to B (the officer) because A has no memory of B. However B is identical to A because B is conscious of being A. C (the old major general) could only be B (the officer) in so far as his conscious memory remembers B to be. Hence C (the old major general) could be B (the officer) but not A (the young boy). My point is A, B and C don't exist at the same time. I personally cannot see how this arguement refutes Locke's position.
If a soul can occupy two separate men, but because these men do not consciously know of each other and as therefore two separate 'persons' just who will be judged at the resurrection. Will a soul be judged multiple times because it has occupied many discrete persons?
But I think Locke is also looking forward when he talks of the 'Great Day' (day of judgement). Mackie in the reading also suggests that Locke is forward thinking and this is what he is basing his moral responsibility for present actions on. Personally I think this is where Locke is contradicting himself, rather than memory consciousness being a motive for good moral behaviour it could be used as an excuse for bad behaviour. Also how can the memory of a future self dictate moral behaviour of your present day self when you have no idea what your future memory of your present day actions will be
Locke refines the attributes of what a 'self' means. Here is looking at variables to narrow down what is important and what is not. He used the word 'man' to mean the physical entity, the word 'person' to mean consciousness, and 'substance' to mean the immaterial and unchanging (such as the soul). Interestingly Snowden disagrees on the latter definition of substance- he agrees that it in immaterial but suggests it could be a changing entity such as the consciousness.
http://philosophybites.com/past_programmes.html
My ideas
I had a problem with the old general thought experiment. If memory represents the person, then A (the young boy) is not identical to B (the officer) because A has no memory of B. However B is identical to A because B is conscious of being A. C (the old major general) could only be B (the officer) in so far as his conscious memory remembers B to be. Hence C (the old major general) could be B (the officer) but not A (the young boy). My point is A, B and C don't exist at the same time. I personally cannot see how this arguement refutes Locke's position.
If a soul can occupy two separate men, but because these men do not consciously know of each other and as therefore two separate 'persons' just who will be judged at the resurrection. Will a soul be judged multiple times because it has occupied many discrete persons?
But I think Locke is also looking forward when he talks of the 'Great Day' (day of judgement). Mackie in the reading also suggests that Locke is forward thinking and this is what he is basing his moral responsibility for present actions on. Personally I think this is where Locke is contradicting himself, rather than memory consciousness being a motive for good moral behaviour it could be used as an excuse for bad behaviour. Also how can the memory of a future self dictate moral behaviour of your present day self when you have no idea what your future memory of your present day actions will be
Locke refines the attributes of what a 'self' means. Here is looking at variables to narrow down what is important and what is not. He used the word 'man' to mean the physical entity, the word 'person' to mean consciousness, and 'substance' to mean the immaterial and unchanging (such as the soul). Interestingly Snowden disagrees on the latter definition of substance- he agrees that it in immaterial but suggests it could be a changing entity such as the consciousness.
http://philosophybites.com/past_programmes.html
The paradox of the heap. Sorites paradox. by Eubulides of Miletus.
The paradox of the bald man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
